Bustitution on Cambrian to accommodate private charter

[JonathanH]

Surely you would agree that, as a minimum, it should be a condition of charter operators being allowed to 'steal' the paths of passenger services that they must accept ordinary National Rail tickets (albeit possibly subject to compulsory reservations on practical grounds)?

If someone presented themselves to the platform staff at Shrewsbury in a genuine emergency situation, I'm sure the charter operator would oblige with allowing them to travel.

How exactly would the suggestion of compulsory reservations work with casual passengers who were caught out. Wouldnt they still need to wait for the next train?

The railway receives millions of public subsidy a year and it doesn't seem reasonable for a private charter to benefit from this where it (literally) comes at the expense of services for local residents.

It is one train being cancelled. At worst, someone got to a station between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth and had an hour wait. It happens somewhere for all sorts of reasons every day of the year.

Was there ever a time when someone could pick up a paper timetable at the timetable change and be assured that every single service would run in those times for the currency of the timetable with 100% reliability?

This wouldn't either, given it doesn't allow travel in the other areas of the train, so you can't sit with full tour passengers, and also you can't book "split" because part fares to Shrewsbury haven't been offered.

I am definitely not suggesting that people would 'split' the charter fare. I'm suggesting that offering 60 miles of class 37 haulage for £23.80 might attract passengers on top of the usual demand for the 1029 from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth.

I'm noting that if the train is limited to a certain length, and priced on the basis of it being filled with 400 passengers paying £129, £189 or £299 as appropriate then not being able to fill two of those coaches at that price challenges the viability. I make the cost of 128 empty seats being £16,500 at £129 each.

To prevent abuse, it could be perfectly feasible to charge say £1 for reserving a seat and making reservations mandatory. This may be the only option given that charters are often prohibited from carrying more passengers than seats.

But you are saying that the biggest issue is for local passengers who haven't looked at live running on the day the charter runs and turn up at the station to find there is no train? Who are you trying to defend, people who have already booked, or those who choose to travel on the day? I guess both, but neither would be accommodated in a compulsory reservation scenario.

As it happens, the 1029 from Shrewsbury is already cancelled for 18 April, but not yet 16 May.

Realtime Trains | 1J09 1029 Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth | 16/05/2024

Real-time train running information for 1J09 1029 departure from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth on 16/05/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I am offered a £7.80 advance ticket for the train from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth on that day, even though that is likely not to be running.

I think your point is that it needs to be handled in a more customer friendly way. It seems established that four or five times a year this service may be cancelled for a charter, so potentially there could be a note in printed timetables, but would people actually notice?

 

[northwichcat]

TfW Rail's timetable booklet does not have any date exclusions for 12:29 Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury/Birmingham, so they should advertise any change in the same way rail engineering works are advertised.

https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2023-12/1%20Cambrian%20-%20Dec%202023_V2.pdf

Where was the excursion going? Could passengers, who had already purchased tickets before the change was announced, have been accommodated at TfW's expense? (Subject to available capacity).

 

[yorkie]

TfW advertises an advance booking horizon of only 6 weeks, so I suspect advances were never sold for this train.

Whether they were sold for that specific train or not is difficult to establish retrospectively, however we have established the issue does exist:

I am offered a £7.80 advance ticket for the train from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth on that day, even though that is likely not to be running.

If we can figure out the train is probably not running, TfW really ought to be able to do so too, and take appropriate steps.

...So TFW will benefit, NR will benefit and local business at Barmouth, Porthmadog, Pwllheli will benefit with increased tourism (specifically they will benefit outside of the already very busy peak summer period). ..

Yes, exactly this; only a miniscule minority (I'm only aware of one for certain) state that the charters should not run and disagree with this.

So this is more a matter of procedures relating to timetable data, Advance availability, communication on the part of TfW towards prospective passengers, and rights / compensation available to customers.

It sounds to me that there is a lot of room for improvement in at least some of these areas. However, as others have correctly pointed out, the problem of short notice cancellations (for all sorts of reasons) is endemic in the rail industry and applies to numerous TOCs, and indeed this particular example is actually nowhere near as bad as numerous others, in terms of the lack of notice and impact on passengers.

 

[Starmill]

But you are saying that the biggest issue is for local passengers who haven't looked at live running on the day the charter runs and turn up at the station to find there is no train? Who are you trying to defend, people who have already booked, or those who choose to travel on the day? I guess both, but neither would be accommodated in a compulsory reservation scenario.

The bus is still going to be an option for anyone who can't reserve a seat on the train, or who wants a station which the train passes through without stopping, or whose disability means the train is very difficult for them to use.

The train option is something I'm agreeing with @Watershed as being a practical, sensible option, in addition to the more important safeguards around notice and publicity, as well as a bus replacement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

Wouldnt they still need to wait for the next train?

If it were just one person they'd be permitted to board last if any vacant seats were available in the "TfW" portion of the train. Otherwise they'd have to choose between the bus and waiting for the following train.

 

[43066]

This might all be a storm in a teacup for a very niche case with a limited passenger impact.

Agreed. It’s one cancelled train, with several weeks’ notice! I’m not even sure a bustitition in these circumstances is a sensible use of resources when the tiny minority affected could simply travel earlier or later.

Sorry, I don't follow. What do the cost of ordinary train fares have to do with anything? Surely you would agree that, as a minimum, it should be a condition of charter operators being allowed to 'steal' the paths of passenger services that they must accept ordinary National Rail tickets (albeit possibly subject to compulsory reservations on practical grounds)?

This seems a bizarre idea, and would risk having various unintended consequences: charters being mobbed when service trains are cancelled, overwhelming staff and ruining the experience for those on board the charter, people boarding the charter and finding it isn’t going to their intended destination, or is going via an incredibly circuitous route etc. I suspect that this is another of those suggestions that could only ever make sense to a tiny minority of posters on here, and will never see the light of day elsewhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

Was there ever a time when someone could pick up a paper timetable at the timetable change and be assured that every single service would run in those times for the currency of the timetable with 100% reliability?

Nope!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

Do you expect regular passengers to have to check timetables before they set out every day? That's not how to grow use of public transport.

Most people surely check live running information before each and every journey, yes. It’s the common sense thing to do.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

So this is more a matter of procedures relating to timetable data, Advance availability, communication on the part of TfW towards prospective passengers, and rights / compensation available to customers.

It sounds to me that there is a lot of room for improvement in at least some of these areas.

Bang on.

However, as others have correctly pointed out, the problem of short notice cancellations (for all sorts of reasons) is endemic in the rail industry and applies to numerous TOCs, and indeed this particular example is actually nowhere near as bad as numerous others, in terms of the lack of notice and impact on passengers.

It isn't, but compared to rolling stock failures, staff shortages, and the like, the difference is that this situation is entirely foreseeable.*

TfW simply need to (a) put a note in the PDF and station timetables, (b) put notices at stations, (c) withdraw the train from the online timetable for the affected days. They can do that right now.

* rolling stock failures and staff shortages are arguably also a foreseeable consequence of the sclerotic DfT-managed railway, but I digress

 

[Horizon22]

With respect, that is an arbitrary timescale imposed by the industry upon itself. There is no reason why the above-described partnership between TfW and NR couldn't involve greater advance notice for amendments to services due to charters. It's just more operationally convenient to treat it the same as any other line.

Yet again, operational convenience takes priority over customer convenience. But then that's the prevailing attitude in British rail so it's hardly surprising.

Well yes, but TfW are working within the constraints they have.

The charter operators need to work to T-12 instead then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

Bang on.


It isn't, but compared to rolling stock failures, staff shortages, and the like, the difference is that this situation is entirely foreseeable.*

TfW simply need to (a) put a note in the PDF and station timetables, (b) put notices at stations, (c) withdraw the train from the online timetable for the affected days. They can do that right now.

* rolling stock failures and staff shortages are arguably also a foreseeable consequence of the sclerotic DfT-managed railway, but I digress

They could do a&b but not necessarily c) as they might do some unnecessarily.

Overall I’m sure it could be improved but it’s the first time it’s happened and it’s quite a unique thing for the timetable so let’s see what happens for next time.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Two carriages

Personally I think that’s far too much. TFW don’t fill two carriages on those services. All that will result in is higher prices for the charter tickets and less people using them.

If someone presented themselves to the platform staff at Shrewsbury in a genuine emergency situation, I'm sure the charter operator would oblige with allowing them to travel.

I saw three trains in a row from Shrewsbury towards Cardiff get cancelled one evening and TFW control somehow got a charter operator to accept its passengers as far as Newport.
Only 3 people actually got on, best value ticket they’ve ever had though I’d have thought haha !

 

[Watershed]

Well yes, but TfW are working within the constraints they have.

Surely it was open to TfW/ATW to negotiate normal "Informed Traveller" timescales for charters as part of their agreement to run the additional Cambrian services?

In any event, even if one accepted T-6 charter planing as an immovable constraint, other posters have set out the bare minimum that TfW should be doing to make sure customers are as informed as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'd help (as with many situations) if the rail industry systems allowed a train to be closed/not opened for sale (i.e. selection in a planner based system) without being compulsory reservation. Then that train could only be opened for sale when it was confirmed it would operate, with a note on it explaining why and by what date it'd be confirmed it would run. You'd not even need to run a bus then.

Information is, as always, key, and something the railway is remarkably bad at given the capabilities available to it.

 

[TurbineEnginee]

It didn't seem like much of a problem to those who wrote the ETCS specs either, until they came to consider the detail of exactly how to implement it. A bit like the idea of the portable ETCS unit that was promised for charter trains ever since ETCS was first put on the Cambrian.

Remember that it is the train that is talking to the control centre - not both ends of the train. If both ends were talking separately, that would double the numbers of radio messages needed for every train. If trains are running closely together, you are already going to need a lot of messages to keep the second train running smoothly, without doubling it. You would also need some method of correlating the two units, particularly when joining and dividing.

Getting the position of the rear of the train right is safety critical. If a train thinks that it is 4 carrs long when in fact it is now 8 carrs could result in another train running into the back of it, or a set of points being moved under it. Getting the length of the train too long could also have operational impacts, if you can't move a set of points because the system thinks the rear of the train is still standing on them, or if you can't open a level crossing behind a stationary train.

Incidentally, ETCS does not use GPS,as suggested by a previous poster. There are proposals to use GPS as one of the location systems, but it is never going to be the sole method. Not only is it problematic in mountainous areas and in tunnels, but the resolution isn't really good enough in multi-track areas. It is also relatively easy to interfere with it, as we have seen recently. Living at the foot of a small mountain, my GPS regularly thinks I am 5 miles or so from my true location.

This to me seems off.

Sometimes the back of the train is the front and sometimes the front of the train is the back. So both ends have to be able to report their position anyway.

The concerns about the number of messages seems really strange. The messages can’t be very large because there just isn’t that much to put in them, and we can’t need a very high frequency because the velocity of a train can’t change very quickly.

If we‘re genuinely worried about sending what - an extra few hundred bytes every few seconds - then the whole thing would be doomed to failure anyway.

 

[Starmill]

It'd help (as with many situations) if the rail industry systems allowed a train to be closed/not opened for sale (i.e. selection in a planner based system) without being compulsory reservation.

It does allow for this though, as has been said before when you've posted this, the service can be unadvertised on specific dates. I don't know why TfW are advertising it, knowing it's unlikely to run, is it gross management incompetence or simple sloppiness?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

It is one train being cancelled. At worst, someone got to a station between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth and had an hour wait. It happens somewhere for all sorts of reasons every day of the year.

If a train is cancelled at the last moment for some unavoidable and unforeseen reason, such as the weather being bad and affecting the line, then yes. I tend to think nearly all British people travelling on public transport would accept this position. I certainly would, though I may be slightly inconvenienced, if it were only an hour of my life, probably not enough to complain about it beyond claiming the usual compensation if the delay reached the relevant threshold.

But something planned and agreed many years in advance and then managed badly, where the operator knew the train couldn't run, but didn't follow the usual procedure to get the amendments done before the twelve week horizon? Now that's a totally different situation, I think most people would agree.

 

[Adam Williams]

It does allow for this though, as has been said before when you've posted this, the service can be unadvertised on specific dates. I don't know why TfW are advertising it, knowing it's unlikely to run, is it gross management incompetence or simple sloppiness?

There unfortunately seems to be an obsession in this industry with mismanaging the timetable data, and then proposing all sorts of nonsensical band-aids (in the form of expensive shiny new systems to guess when engineering works might be happening based on other data sources, mis-use of the reservation system and other passenger-unfriendly measures) to be slapped on top. I've never understood it.

 

[Horizon22]

It does allow for this though, as has been said before when you've posted this, the service can be unadvertised on specific dates. I don't know why TfW are advertising it, knowing it's unlikely to run, is it gross management incompetence or simple sloppiness?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

I'd imagine it's more likely to be the latter, but frankly probably something that is just novel to them and dealt with in a slightly awkward manner. Who knows maybe this needs politely flagging up to them for next time.

Never expect malice or conspiracy when its probably just lots of individual teams not seeing the overall issue (and / or not seeing it as a priority).

 

[Belperpete]

Some people seem to be arguing that there are so few passengers on the cancelled service that they aren't worth bothering about (all for the greater good and such-like), while others seem to be arguing that accommodating all those passengers on the charter would make it uneconomic to run. Surely both can't be true?

It is one train being cancelled. At worst, someone got to a station between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth and had an hour wait. It happens somewhere for all sorts of reasons every day of the year.

Not in the case of the Aber to Shrewsbury service. If someone misses their connection at Shrewsbury, they could be delayed by much more than an hour.

Most people surely check live running information before each and every journey, yes. It’s the common sense thing to do.

As I posted previously, people who are not buying a ticket are unlikely to plan their journey using a ticket-buying app, and TfW advise people to use Journey Check. I travelled on that day, and don't recall seeing anything about these cancellations on Journey Check. I suspect a case of TfW amending the timetable, but not bothering to tell anybody in any meaningful way.

TfW simply need to (a) put a note in the PDF and station timetables, (b) put notices at stations, (c) withdraw the train from the online timetable for the affected days. They can do that right now.

Agreed that they should put up posters at the stations, same as they do when trains are cancelled in advance for engineering works. They also need to make sure that such cancellations are posted on their web-site, as such cancellations then don't show in Journey Check if the timetable has been amended.

 

[Horizon22]

Some people seem to be arguing that there are so few passengers on the cancelled service that they aren't worth bothering about (all for the greater good and such-like), while others seem to be arguing that accommodating all those passengers on the charter would make it uneconomic to run. Surely both can't be true?

Welcome to the nature of the arguments! I personally of the view that pragmatically and practically - despite the completely fair princpled arguments from some on the forum - a tiny amount of people have been inconvenienced by this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some people seem to be arguing that there are so few passengers on the cancelled service that they aren't worth bothering about (all for the greater good and such-like), while others seem to be arguing that accommodating all those passengers on the charter would make it uneconomic to run. Surely both can't be true?

I think the issue is that, there may well in actuality have been very few passengers on the cancelled service, but if you are going to deal with those by putting them on the charter train, then the charter train will need to set aside sufficient seats in advance. And since the charter organisers have no way of knowing in advance how many (non-charter) passengers will actually turn up, they'll have to set aside sufficient seats for whatever the plausible greatest number of people is who might turn up. That is a much greater number, and therefore carries a much greater cost to the charter operator.

The other issue is that, once people realise that they can get on what would normally be a very expensive (steam?) charter train merely by showing up at Shrewsbury with a much cheaper ticket for the cancelled TfW service, you can expect a fair few people will choose to do that instead of buying tickets for the charter train. That could have an even bigger impact on making the charter service uneconomic to run.

 

[RT4038]

Some people seem to be arguing that there are so few passengers on the cancelled service that they aren't worth bothering about (all for the greater good and such-like), while others seem to be arguing that accommodating all those passengers on the charter would make it uneconomic to run. Surely both can't be true?

I think the issue is, already made in post #91

I'm suggesting that offering 60 miles of class 37 haulage for £23.80 might attract passengers on top of the usual demand for the 1029 from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth.

And we know that this would most definitely happen!

 

[louis97]

It didn't seem like much of a problem to those who wrote the ETCS specs either, until they came to consider the detail of exactly how to implement it. A bit like the idea of the portable ETCS unit that was promised for charter trains ever since ETCS was first put on the Cambrian.

The issue isn't really knowing where the back of the train is, ETCS level 2 already knows where the back of the train is so it can enforce speed restrictions, etc. You enter the information on train formation as part of ETCS setup. The issue is proving a train remains complete, related but not quite the same thing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The issue isn't really knowing where the back of the train is, ETCS level 2 already knows where the back of the train is so it can enforce speed restrictions, etc. You enter the information on train formation as part of ETCS setup. The issue is proving a train remains complete, related but not quite the same thing.

I'm guessing that's a non-issue for DMUs and EMUs these days since they tend to be built with carriages so well joined together into single trainsets that it's going to be basically impossible for them to split up? Correct? If so, then this is only an issue if you are joining multiple trainsets together (or for freight and charters that use old stock comprising independent carriages). I would have expected that all you really need is an additional electrical cable along the length of the train and used when joining sets together that can carry an electrical signal indicating to the driving cab that the sets remain joined up. While that is extra hardware to fit to the trains, that would seem trivially simple in comparison to all the electrical hardware trains already carry.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that there aren't already some electronics that can alert the driver if part of the train becomes detached? Besides, if that happened, wouldn't that be likely to alter the driving characteristics of the train (since it's pulling less weight) in a way that the driver would be likely to notice? (Granted that's short of the 'proof' you'd need for a signalling system).

 

[43096]

I'm guessing that's a non-issue for DMUs and EMUs these days since they tend to be built with carriages so well joined together into single trainsets that it's going to be basically impossible for them to split up? Correct? If so, then this is only an issue if you are joining multiple trainsets together (or for freight and charters that use old stock comprising independent carriages). I would have expected that all you really need is an additional electrical cable along the length of the train and used when joining sets together that can carry an electrical signal indicating to the driving cab that the sets remain joined up. While that is extra hardware to fit to the trains, that would seem trivially simple in comparison to all the electrical hardware trains already carry.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that there aren't already some electronics that can alert the driver if part of the train becomes detached? Besides, if that happened, wouldn't that be likely to alter the driving characteristics of the train (since it's pulling less weight) in a way that the driver would be likely to notice? (Granted that's short of the 'proof' you'd need for a signalling system).

For loco-hauled trains there's already a perfectly capable connection that will detect if the train is divided. It's called the brake pipe and if the train splits then the brakes apply. If you want to go further, use something like the North American "End of Train" device that is connected via radio with the loco.

Likewise for multiple units, the connections through the auto-coupler provide the same functionality.

 

[Belperpete]

I seem to recall an incident a few years back when a train came to an emergency stop because the trainpipe had been broken. The traincrew went back, and found the rear brake pipe hanging off, so they put it back on, and the train proceeded. What they failed to realise was that the train had divided, and they had left a couple of wagons behind. I think it happened somewhere in Europe? On wagons, where the only train continuity proving is the brake pipe, how do you guard against this kind of thing?

The number of radio messages necessary to transmit from both front and rear of the train would not be an issue on a lightly-trafficked line like the Cambrian. But it would be an issue on a high-frequency, high traffic density metro line where there could be a LOT of messages being transmitted. And even if you did it, you would still need to ensure that the right cab was transmitting after trains are joined or divided.

As I said previously, rear of train proving is proving to be a real issue for mixed traffic railways. The only systems that I am aware of that are implementing anything like level 3 are metro-type networks with fixed-formation multiple-unit type trains.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Some people seem to be arguing that there are so few passengers on the cancelled service that they aren't worth bothering about (all for the greater good and such-like), while others seem to be arguing that accommodating all those passengers on the charter would make it uneconomic to run. Surely both can't be true?

Slight issue for the people wanting to go from Aber to Shrewsbury at 12:30 … the charter train is going to Pwllheli haha.

I'm guessing that's a non-issue for DMUs and EMUs these days since they tend to be built with carriages so well joined together into single trainsets that it's going to be basically impossible for them to split up? Correct?

NOPE. incorrect. You MUST prove that the train is complete. You can not rely on ‘well it’s not likely to happen’.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2024 ==

how do you guard against this kind of thing?

I guess that’s where your tail lamp comes in ? It proves that the train complete.

 

[43066]

As I posted previously, people who are not buying a ticket are unlikely to plan their journey using a ticket-buying app, and TfW advise people to use Journey Check.

But if people check live running info, as advised to do, they should notice the cancellation of that particular service on the day, should they not?

So who are the people that are going to be caught out by this? It seems only to be people who booked tickets for that train more than five weeks ago, and who have then not checked live running info on the day and have simply turned up. That’s going to be a tiny, tiny number, and quite possibly none at all, given that the train is reportedly lightly loaded when it does run.

 

[Belperpete]

Slight issue for the people wanting to go from Aber to Shrewsbury at 12:30 … the charter train is going to Pwllheli haha.

But not for those wanting to go to Shrewsbury on the train that was cancelled for the charter's return path

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

But if people check live running info, as advised to do, they should notice the cancellation of that particular service on the day, should they not?

Those checking on Journey Check, as advised by TfW will not see it cancelled, if it has been removed from the timetable. As I previously posted, I travelled on that day, and didn't see these cancellations when I checked Journey Check.

 

[Lurcheroo]

But not for those wanting to go to Shrewsbury on the train that was cancelled for the charter's return path

Well that was at about 7:30pm in the evening departing Machynlleth and no cancellations needed. The 7pm and 8pm to Shrewsbury both ran.
Looks like the train going the opposite direction was booked an extended wait at Tallerddig (about 25 minutes) to allow the charter to go through as well. I assume this then crossed the next service at Newtown.

 

[Belperpete]

Various posters seem to be saying that because few passengers use the service, it doesn't matter if they are arbitrarily inconvenienced. Frankly, I find this attitude that passengers don't matter quite appalling. Even if only one person is affected, that person deserves to be considered.

Thursday 18 April
Thursday 16 May
Thursday 5 September
Thursday 12 September

Thanks for the info.

Looking at the TfW web-site for planned timetable changes, there is no mention of any planned changes to the Cambrian timetable for 18th April (it only mentions changes to one Radyr service, and late/early trains between Chester and Manchester). I will be travelling on the Cambrian soon, so will look out to see if there is any advise to passengers about this at stations.

 

[Horizon22]

Various posters seem to be saying that because few passengers use the service, it doesn't matter if they are arbitrarily inconvenienced. Frankly, I find this attitude that passengers don't matter quite appalling. Even if only one person is affected, that person deserves to be considered.

Well it isn’t “arbitrarily inconvenienced”; it is for one train, for a specific reason, a few times a year in one part of the country. Of course passengers matter but this needs to be put into perspective for the very few (it could be zero with just a few timetable & information tweaks) people it will practically impact.

 

[43066]

Those checking on Journey Check, as advised by TfW will not see it cancelled, if it has been removed from the timetable. As I previously posted, I travelled on that day, and didn't see these cancellations when I checked Journey Check.

Accepting it would be better if it showed as cancelled (others have suggested up thread that it did on other sources) however, if they’ve searched for the status of that specific train, presumably they will notice it has disappeared?

Train cancellations do happen all over the network for various reasons, many without bustititions, many at much shorter notice, so it’s just difficult to see this as a major issue.

Frankly, I find this attitude that passengers don't matter quite appalling.

Nobody has said that, complete hyperbole.

 

[Starmill]

I'd imagine it's more likely to be the latter, but frankly probably something that is just novel to them and dealt with in a slightly awkward manner. Who knows maybe this needs politely flagging up to them for next time.

Never expect malice or conspiracy when its probably just lots of individual teams not seeing the overall issue (and / or not seeing it as a priority).

A very popular thing to say, for sure! But I haven't seen any evidence of people claiming or implying that this was malicious.